In subsection A below, listed are articles which are missing from the List of statistics articles. They were found by looking in the categories in subsection C. One can add more categories to be searched to subsection C, see some suggestions in subsection D.

All this process can be restarted by clicking on the link at the bottom of subsection E.

Please note that anything around here is editable, but please don't modify the lines of the form

The bot will look for potential additions to the List of statistics articles in this list of categories. You may add any other categories to this list, for example from subsection D below. Use the format [[:Category:XXX]] (the colon (:) shows up twice!).

There are a bunch of redirects on this list. Btyner (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics it would be good if such redirects can be indicated explicitly, so that the project can rethink them: see eg "cumulant generating function" Melcombe (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No we do need to include statistics packages here as agreed above. What we don't need is a whole slew of irrelevant probability articles ... after all this is a statistics list and there is a separate probability list. Melcombe (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don’t see how you suggesting to draw a line between probability theory and statistics… In fact there is even a statement on the WPStatistics page saying that we cover both statistics and probability theory. In any case the List of probability topics is an “outline” type of list, not alphabetical; so we shouldn’t really exclude probability articles from the index based on the fact that they are also on the list of probability topics. As for software packages — they’ll be fine in their own separate list. They are not statistical topics (and do not belong to the Index page) because it is impossible to start an article with a sentence “In statistics, Stata is a software package …”. … stpasha » 16:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well of course List of probability topics started off as a list until someone started to rearrange it for their own purpose. It is clear that there are many parts of "probability" that a statistician would not be interested in, but some that the statistics project can reasonably keep an eye on until someone reactivate the probability project. As for statistics packages, there was clear agreement by two people above that they should be included but, simply because they are of no interest to one person, you say they should not be included. Melcombe (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Melcombe has reverted much of my previous labors on this list, which probably means that I owe an apology for inadvertent vandalism. The confusion and misunderstanding came from the fact that this list doesn't clearly state its purpose, scope and limitations.

It was my understanding that the page lists all the articles which are under the scope of WPStatistics project (that is, those which have or have to have a banner {{WikiProject Statistics}}). As such, software articles seemed to me out-of-place (really, is Excel, or Mathematica, or Matlab under the scope of our project?), whereas the majority of articles from categories Category:Probability theory and Category:Probability theorems seemed relevant (such as Random variable for example). That’s why I included those categories into the part C (searchable categories), since the majority of articles (not necessarily all of them) from those categories do in fact belong to WPStatistics project.

I'll be back when the purpose of this list is clarified and strict guidelines with respect to what should and what shouldn't be in here established. … stpasha » 22:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The page exists to be a list of statistics topics, not necessarily as part of the WPStatistics project, which it pre-existed under other names. The range of topics generally considered to be covered by "statistics" is rather different from that covered by "probability" and a general reader (not a project member) should be entitled to find that the list contains what it says in the title. The project was set up specifically to extend the range of articles covered beyond those of purely/mainly mathematical interest which are presumably covered by the maths project and to include those with no mathematical content. There was already discussion here about whether to include software, and these have (nearly always) been tagged with a label of "software" in this list. But essentially, statisticans do use statistical software. Most are not interested in measure-theoretic mumbo-jumbo. And this applies to "general readers" not specifically project members. Perhaps those items on this list which would not be of interest to statisticians could be labelled with something like "Probability Theory". Remember that there are the lists of mathematics artilcles which will contain both probability and statistics topics. Melcombe (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Following up the directions in the template above leads to "There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Index of statistics articles which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 11:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)", which I guess means here. Melcombe (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? The previous change to the name of this article was from "list of..." to "index of..." on exactly the opposite grounds to those used for justification here. I.e. "Index of..." was supposed to be the standard form. See changes round 9 June 2009. That of course followed another change around 14 Jan 2008, again for standardization. See e.g. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_28#Indexes for an instance of dicussion. So is this change going to be better or more long-lasting? One doubts it. The end effect of these supposed improvements is that we end up with a name that does not reflect the intended purpose of the article, which relates to "topics" (as originally) not "articles". Melcombe (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then I guess indices will never be featured. I guess this would be an acceptable start to better category functionality.174.3.98.236 (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.